The Journal Star Editorial Board has submitted this fallacy-filled essay about the Block the Bonds initiative to its readers today.

They begin by saying “it was one tall if not impossible order, trying to acquire almost 10,000 signatures in a month’s time to force a referendum on the ballot,” but then later state, “From where we sit this was not too high a bar to climb.” Really? Almost impossible is not too high?

Then they say, “we weren’t surprised that their attempt to give voters a second whack at the museum fell well short of the mark.” Here’s where readers need to beware of a straw man the editors are erecting. No one was trying to get a “second whack at the museum.” This petition drive was a separate issue regarding the type of bonds that would be issued. The editors acknowledge this in some parts of the editorial, and in other parts ignore it, acting as if we were trying to put the sales tax referendum of April 2009 back on the ballot for a “second whack.” More on that later; first, let’s dispense with a couple introductory critiques:

First, to hear some museum critics talk, they represented the silent, seething majority out there, with this petition drive their chance to prove it.

None of the organizers of this petition drive ever said it was a chance to prove we represented some “silent, seething majority.” The editors’ characterization is pure fiction. We said that many people were asking us what could be done about the County Board’s broken promises, and our answer was that this petition drive was the only avenue of protest. We had no idea how many people would be motivated enough to circulate or sign the petition.

They were required to get the signatures of just over 8 percent of the county’s nearly 121,500 registered voters, about 5,000 fewer people than said “no” to the museum a year and a half ago and ostensibly should have been in lockstep here. They managed less than 1.5 percent.

This ignores obvious and significant differences between voters going to the polls and citizens circulating a petition. Let’s start with the fact that votes are secret, but names on a petition are public. Many people refused to sign or circulate the petition, not because they were against the effort, but because they feared retaliation or social stigma. Then there’s the short time frame (30 days), large area to cover (all of Peoria County), high number of signatures required (nearly 10,000), and limited resources (couldn’t launch a half-million dollar media blitz). These and other hurdles are dismissed by the editorial board in the next paragraph:

Some petition passers would have us believe the odds were unfairly stacked against them. From where we sit this was not too high a bar to climb, but in any event second-guessing the will of the electorate isn’t easy and should not be. If it were no referendum could stand, with the disgruntled minority stalling the march of democracy from here to eternity through an endless series of do-overs.

Now, back to the straw man. The electorate voted for the public facilities sales tax in April 2009 based on the commitments and promises made at that time. It is presumptuous to assume the electorate agrees with the significant changes that have been made since that time. Putting one of those changes — the type of bonds issued — on the ballot would have been a way to ascertain the will of of the electorate, not second-guess it.

What in the world do the editors mean when they say, “no referendum could stand” or “an endless series of do-overs”? No referendum would have been overturned or redone. This wasn’t a rehash of the April 2009 referendum; it was a totally separate issue. The editors know this, but they deliberately muddy the waters. Why? Because it’s easier to argue against a straw man than the actual issue. They were all for direct democracy in April 2009 for the sales tax, but are against it in October 2010 for the bond issuance; misrepresenting the issue makes it easier to conceal their hypocrisy.

This group labels itself “Citizens For Responsible Spending,” but “responsible” can be in the eye of the beholder. In fact you can make a case for both types of borrowing proposed for this project.

The case made in April 2009 by the County was for revenue bonds.

No doubt in detractors’ minds they were doing local taxpayers a favor by insisting on revenue bonds because those provide a greater level of protection that local government won’t dip into their pockets should the project fail.

Note that this was the same case the County made in April 2009.

They’re [CFRS] certain this museum is doomed. Our crystal ball isn’t that clear, so we don’t dare presume.

You don’t need a crystal ball to see that this project is doomed. You just need eyes to see. Read the museum’s own pro forma. Read the White Oak Associates master plan, commissioned by the museum group. Witness the fundraising failures of the past decade right up to today by the museum group. You don’t have to be Warren Buffett to figure out this project is a stinker.

Of course revenue bonds also come with a higher interest rate than general obligation bonds, which is what makes the latter the preferred method of borrowing here.

Here’s the problem with this explanation: it doesn’t explain why the County committed to revenue bonds in the first place. Revenue bonds came with a higher interest rate in April 2009 just like they do today. That hasn’t changed. So, if the interest rate were the only criterion, the County would have been touting G. O. bonds all along, right? But they haven’t. They very clearly stated — verbally and in writing — that they were committed to issuing revenue bonds because it was in the best interests of the taxpayers to put the risk on the bond holders, not Peoria County taxpayers. The editors want to ignore this fact and have us accept a simplistic answer.

Even if the CFRS group prevailed, it wouldn’t kill the project.

Here they acknowledge that the referendum would not have stopped the museum, despite their earlier implication that it would have “stall[ed] the march of democracy.”

It would merely force the issuance of a different type of bond that likely would be more costly to taxpayers, not less.

It’s “more costly” only in the sense that having insurance is “more costly” than being uninsured.

Ultimately, there’s no such thing as risk-free, but if past is prologue, the sales tax revenues dedicated to this project – and not dependent on the museum’s performance – should comfortably cover the debt service without tapping taxpayers further.

Interesting that their crystal ball is remarkably clear on this issue, and they’re more than happy to presume a rosy outcome.

Beyond that, should local leaders hold to a rigid course of action even if a better option emerges? One man’s “bait and switch” can be another’s wise and flexible stewardship.

Again, this assumes that a better option has emerged. The option of issuing general obligation bonds has been with us the whole time. If it’s so clearly superior, why was it not promoted in April 2009? Why has this never been asked by the esteemed Journal Star editorial board? In fact, why have the editors never asked any tough questions of the museum group or Peoria County on this issue?

[T]his group [CFRS] has some members who can be mighty unforgiving, holding others to something of a purity test that arguably no one can pass, themselves included. For example, in early September one CFRS leader told this newspaper that some 3,500 signatures had been gathered at that point and “we’re still gaining momentum.”

They’re talking about Brad Harding, who tells me he was misquoted by the Journal Star. He says he only told the reporter how many petitions had been distributed to circulators (350 at that point), not that they had been completed or that 3,500 signatures had been gathered. The reporter evidently misunderstood and drew some erroneous conclusions. Leave it to the Journal Star Editorial Board to use their own paper’s mistake to take a cheap shot at CFRS members. After calling Brad a liar, they try to sound magnanimous by saying “We’d be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt….” Sure, whatever you say.

We, too, sometimes get frustrated with the actions of our public officials, become dissatisfied with the direction in which they’re taking the community. That doesn’t mean you should demonize them, question their integrity or intelligence or independence, proclaim them part of a conspiracy, accuse them of acting illegally or unconstitutionally.

Flashback to June 11, 2007, from the high-minded Peoria Journal Star Editorial Board:

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis made news of his own last week in chastising Peoria media for casting local events – such as the city’s record-pace murder rate – in too negative of a light. He believes it – the coverage as well as the crime – is harming the community. He wants it to stop, pronto, or else.

“I’ve always considered myself an optimist,” he wrote recently in a local business magazine. “I’m the person who tries to look at the glass as half-full instead of half-empty .”

While we might take issue with hizzoner on a couple of his comments and criticisms – we tend to believe that news is news, a deviation from the norm, and that you get “good” news when unusually “good” things happen – he may be on to something with this glass-half-empty, glass-half-full thing.

So today we launch a new feature, “Through the Mayor’s Looking Glass” – not that we’re suggesting he’s an Ardis in Wonderland, heavens no. We’ll take various subjects and do our media duty, which is look at them from both perspectives: Glass half empty (the negative left) and glass half full (the positive right). Maybe we can change the mayor’s mind.

Enjoy.

What’s half empty : Clearly Peoria’s fit-to-be-tanned mayor owns tissue-skin thin, even relative to former city chiefs who endured their share of media sunshine, too.

What’s half full: Thankfully, many locals seem to prefer an independent press, not PR appendages of the privileged or of government. See: U.S. Constitution, Amendment One.

The Journal Star’s advice appears to be, “do as we say, not as we do.” After all, to do otherwise would be to hold them to “something of a purity test that arguably no one can pass,” right? Back to today’s editorial:

It really is possible to be well-informed on a subject and arrive at a different conclusion than others. Just because someone disagrees doesn’t mean he or she isn’t listening. As newly elected officials inevitably discover, it’s much harder to govern than to yell from the sidelines.

True. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, “Journal Star Editor” is not an elected position, and the job description of an opinion page editor is to, well, “yell from the sidelines.” So I guess all us unelecteds are in the same boat, eh?

Yet this group’s resentment was palpable, regrettable and, from this vantage, not really justified. Who are the “elites running the city”? Certainly those occupying seats on the City Council and County Board weren’t elected by just “elites.” The initial museum referendum didn’t pass with the votes of 15,305 “elites.”

This is a reference to this article, and a quote attributed to me. From that article:

So is Citizens for Responsible Spending a localized tea party? Summers believes there might be similarities, even though he wouldn’t call the Peoria group a tea party extension.

“(Tea parties) talk about wanting to take their country back,” he said. “To some extent, there is a small group of elites running the city, and there is a sense that we want to take our city back.”

My comments were set in a larger context — not speaking just of the museum project. I was speaking of the frustration voters feel when deals are made in secret, then rolled out to the public at the 11th hour without any opportunity for meaningful input. One example I gave was the downtown hotel project, which was kept under wraps for months, then rolled out to the public on a Friday and voted on the following Monday night. Then we were all told that this was in our best interests and not to worry about it.

The museum issue went forward because Caterpillar bullied the City and County into compliance. Notice that the County was trying to protect taxpayers by insisting that private funding be raised before construction would begin. Then came the letter from Cat that they were going to pull out unless construction began this year. Remember that? Suddenly, all taxpayer protections were thrown out the window and the project proceeded full speed ahead.

Going back a few years, the City did its own independent study on whether Mid-Town Plaza would be good for the City and concluded that it wouldn’t. Then David Joseph brought in his own “study” showing it would be a wonderful benefit, and the City Council went along with it. Now it’s sitting there with no major tenant, sucking general funds away from basic services into its failed TIF. That project’s failure was clearly predicted and never should have gone forward, but it did. Now there’s a new TIF being pushed by OSF St. Francis Medical Center for the East Bluff — with the studies being funded by OSF, to be repaid from the TIF when it’s established.

Now, you’re telling me there isn’t a small group of elites running the city to a certain extent? That developers and large employers don’t get what they want from the City when they want it? There’s nothing democratic about these back-room deals, and it’s not resentment about things “not going [my] way.” It’s outrage about a process that excludes the citizens our elected officials are supposed to serve.

I might add that there was a time when newspapers were interested in exposing such back-room deals and advocating for transparency in government. It’s a shame that Peoria’s only newspaper of record apparently approves of such dealings and instead castigates those who question them. Perhaps that’s why readership is down and the paper keeps shrinking.

Such attitudes are counterproductive. Some folks stay in the minority for a reason. Substance matters, but style and tone do, too. When we endorse for political office, as we soon will, we look not only for a knowledge of the issues but an ability to work with and persuade others; for those who ask “to what end?” before they act; for the maturity and perspective that recognize democracy is worthwhile even when it doesn’t go your way.

Thanks for the advice. It might be worthwhile for the editors to reflect on the fact that democratic decisions are not always the right ones, as has been proved many times in our nation’s history, and that persistence in advocating for what is right is also worthwhile.